Accepted Manuscript

Multi-criteria selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria

Zahra S. Moussavi Nadoushani, Ph.D. Student, Ali Akbarnezhad, Senior Lecturer,

Javier Ferre Jornet, Master Student, Jianzhuang Xiao, Professor

PII: S0360-1323(17)30191-9
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.016
Reference: BAE 4906

To appear in: Building and Environment

Received Date: 27 January 2017

Revised Date: 4 May 2017
Accepted Date: 8 May 2017

Please cite this article as: Moussavi Nadoushani ZS, Akbarnezhad A, Jornet JF, Xiao J, Multi-criteria
selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria, Building and Environment (2017), doi:
10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.016.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Multi-Criteria Selection of Façade Systems Based on Sustainability
Criteria

1 Zahra S. Moussavi Nadoushani, Ph.D. Student, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
2 New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
3 Ali Akbarnezhad, Senior Lecturer, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South
4 Wales, Sydney, Australia

PT
5 Javier Ferre Jornet, Master Student, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Polytechnic University of
6 Valencia (Universitat Politèctica de València), Valencia, Spain
7 Jianzhuang Xiao, Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji
8 University, Shanghai, China

RI
9

10 Abstract

SC
11 The environmental and economic impacts of alternative façade systems have been widely

U
12 investigated in previous studies. However, sustainable design requires reconciliation between
AN
13 economic, environmental and social impacts; the three pillars of a sustainable system, and

14 selection of façade only based on environmental impacts may not always provide a
M

15 sustainable solution. Through a case study, this paper presents a systematic methodology for
D

16 selection of the façade system for a building by accounting the social, economic, and
TE

17 environmental impacts of the decision. A comprehensive list of sustainability criteria for

18 selection of façade systems is presented and discussed in detail. The selected sustainability
EP

19 criteria are then applied to identify the most sustainable facade system, among five different

20 alternatives including double brickwork, aluminium composite panel, ceramic cladding,

C

21 Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) panels and concrete blocks, to replace the existing worn
AC

22 façade of an actual building. Delphi technique, a method of eliciting and refining group

23 judgments, is used to identify applicable sustainability criteria and their relative pair-wise

24 importance scores, while AHP is used to identify the global relative importance weights for

25 different sustainability criteria and rank different alternative façade systems.

26 Keywords: Façade material selection, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Sustainability,

27 Decision-making
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 1. Introduction

2 The building industry is responsible for up to 30% of global annual greenhouse gas emissions

3 [1], 40% of all energy used [1] and 31% of all the waste generated [2]. Furthermore, it

4 occupies a major share of the world’s economy including 6.5% and 8% of UK’s and

5 Australia’s economy, respectively [3, 4]. The attention drawn towards such significant

PT
6 economic and environmental impacts over the past decade has led to a great deal of effort in

RI
7 various sectors of the building industry to improve the sustainability of buildings [5].

8 One of the main building components, which may considerably affect the building’s

SC
9 sustainability performance, is the building’s façade [6]. Façade is the building largest

U
10 component and plays a major role in heat conductivity between indoor and outdoor
AN
11 environments [7]. Selection of suitable façade material from a vast number of alternatives is a

12 complex decision requiring a large amount of information and input from the design team [6,
M

13 8, 9]. A great deal of research has been conducted to compare the life cycle environmental

14 impacts of different façade systems. Han et al. [10] showed that decorative ceramic facade is
D

15 a better option in terms of environmental performance than the widely used curtain walls, i.e.
TE

16 glass, marble, and aluminium. Kim [11] indicated that transparent composite façade systems

17 have a considerably lower environmental impacts than glass curtain wall system. Taborianski
EP

18 and Prado [12] reported that among the various façade alternatives investigated in their study,
C

19 the highest and lowest CO2 emissions were associated with structural glazing with
AC

20 uncoloured glass and brickwork and mortar façade systems, respectively. Ottele et al. [13]

21 showed that in Mediterranean climate, the energy saving benefit of green façade systems is

22 roughly twice more than that of conventional European brick façade [13]. Similar

23 comparative life cycle studies have also been conducted by various researchers [14-16],

24 where the focus has been placed on different types of exterior walls. Pulselli et al.

25 investigated the environmental impacts of three different exterior wall systems; namely a
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 traditional air-cavity wall, a plus-insulated wall (with an external cork covering), and a

2 ventilated wall (with external brick panels fixed on extruded frames) and showed that the

3 relative performance of different systems is a function of external climate conditions [17].

4 Kahhat et al. used a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool named ATHENA [18] to compare

5 various external wall systems for a single storey residential building by considering a wide

PT
6 range of environmental indicators and emphasized that the selection of the best wall system

RI
7 should be based on the overall life cycle environmental impacts rather than individual phases

8 environmental impacts [19].

SC
9 To provide a more comprehensive sustinability assessement, a number of previous studies

10 studies have attempted to evaluate the life cycle economic impacts of different façade

11
U
systems together with the life cycle environmental impacts. Gu et al. [20] combined LCA
AN
12 and life cycle costing (LCC) to evaluate the environmental and economic performance of
M

13 different façade designs and showed that the final solution varies when both factors are

14 included in the decision-making process. Hasan [21] and Bolatturk [22] used life-cycle cost
D

15 analysis and LCA to determine the optimum insulation thickness for buildings.
TE

16 However, as shown above, despite the emphasis on selection of sustainable façade systems,

17 the available literature has been focused mainly on accounting for environmental and/or
EP

18 economic impacts of façade systems, overlooking the third important component of

C

19 sustainability, i.e. social impacts, as well as the trade-off between social impacts and
AC

20 environmental and economic impacts. By realizing this issue, a number of attempts have been

21 made to develop a list of major economic, social and environmental sustainability criteria for

22 selection of façade and envelope systems. By relying on the results of a number of surveys

23 and interviews, Singhaputtangkul et al. [8] identified 18 social sustainability criteria

24 affecting the satisfaction level of occupants. Similarly, Martabid and Mourgues identified

25 eight criteria as the most commonly considered factors in Chilean practice [6]. In line with
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 such efforts, available methods for selection of façade systems based multiple criteria have

2 been also studied [9, 23]. However, the effort in the literature in identifying various selection

3 criteria, there is currently a lack of a systematic framework for selection of sustainable façade

4 systems. Moreover, application of proposed criteria in practice to selection of façade system

5 for an actual building has not been reported.

PT
6 The present paper uses an actual case study, involving selection of a new façade for an

RI
7 existing building located in Sydney to replace its 50 years old damaged façade, to contribute

8 to addressing the above gaps. This case study contributes mainly to body of knowledge by i)

SC
9 highlighting various economic, environmental and social criteria for selection of sustainable

U
10 façade systems, ii) presenting a systematic approach for selection of the façade system for a
AN
11 particular building based on these criteria and iii) evaluating the sensitivity of the decision to

12 different criteria and the relative importance of such criteria in practice.

M

13 2. Case Study
D

14 The case study involves selection of façade material to replace the existing damaged façade
TE

15 of a 50 years old eleven storey building with a total area of 2234 m2, overlooking the Sydney

16 Harbour (Figure 1). The existing façade of the building is common brickwork, which was
EP

17 predominantly the choice of preference in Australia back in the 60’s. The double brickwork

18 façade has an internal cavity without any thermal or acoustic insulation material (Figure 2a).
C

19 A structural investigation of the building carried out in 2013 warned about the deterioration
AC

20 of the masonry façade and the risk of its sudden collapse and recommended a rectification of

21 the external leaf of the brickwork façade within two years. The report further recommended

22 that the internal brickwork, which is in good condition, can remain in use to save time and

23 cost.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
1

SC
2 Figure 1. External view of the eleven storey building considered in this study

U
3 2.1. Façade Alternatives
AN
4 The following five feasible alternatives for replacing the external leaf of the façade were

5 considered proposed. The alternatives were identified among locally available materials by
M

6 considering the suitability for marine environment and construction/installation complexities:

D

7 a) Double brickwork with internal air cavity (Figure 2a): rebuilding the façade using the
TE

8 same system and material was considered as one of decision alternatives.

EP

9 b) Aluminium composite panel with external insulation (Figure 2b): the proposed panels

10 are formed by two anodized aluminium leafs on both sides of the panel with an internal
C

11 plastic core. All panels are assembled to an aluminium sub-structure and fixed to the concrete
AC

12 at every level. The use of these composite panels will provide a new appearance to the

13 building, improve the insulation performance of the facade and reduce the weight imposed on

14 the structure when compared to double brickwork.

15 c) Ceramic cladding with external insulation (Figure 2c): the temperature difference

16 between the outer and inner skin of a double skin façade with an air cavity can significantly
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 save heating energy in winter and cooling energy in summer as long as the façade is provided

2 with ventilation and shadow systems for the cavity [24]. To analyze an example of ventilated

3 façade and compare it with other traditional alternatives used in Australia, a ventilated façade

4 with external leaf composed of extruded ceramic cladding was included as an alternative.

PT
5 d) Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) panels with external insulation (Figure 2d):

6 according to Australia’s guide to environmentally sustainable homes [25], Autoclaved

RI
7 Aerated Concrete (AAC) panels have gained popularity in Australia since their introduction

SC
8 20 years ago [26]. AAC panels are lightweight and highly energy efficient with a better

9 thermal performance than traditional solutions like brickwork or concrete blocks. The other

U
10 advantages of this façade include ease of installation and long life. These panels are usually
AN
11 finished with a skim coating, providing a uniform appearance.
M

12 e) Concrete blocks with insulation between both masonry leaves (Figure 2e): this façade

13 comprises of a masonry leaf of concrete blocks between slabs, which is finished with an
D

14 external cement render and usually painted. Due to ease of construction, this option is
TE

15 generally regarded as a low-cost solution. However, this façade system tends to impose a

16 bigger load on the structure and thus requiring usually a slab extension to support the
EP

17 blockwork.
C

18 2.2 Methodology
AC

19 The methodology adopted in the present study to select the most sustainable façade system

20 among the identified alternatives is shown in Figure 3. As shown, the methodology started by

21 defining the hierarchy of the decision-making problem into four levels of 1) objective 2)

22 criteria 3) sub-criteria 4) decision alternatives, based on the requirements of the Analytic

23 Hierarchy Process (AHP) [27]. The selection of AHP was due to its more systematic

24 approach to identifying the relative importance weights for different criteria, compared to
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 other decision-making methods. In AHP, the assignment of weights to different alternatives is

2 based on a pair-wise comparison instead of arbitrary weight assignment [28].

3 In the next step, Delphi method, a method of eliciting and refining group judgments [29],

4 was used to collect the required data to identify the appropriate selection criteria and sub-

5 criteria and their relative importance weights. Adoption of a systematic method to identify

PT
6 most appropriate selection criteria and importance weights for a particular type of project is

RI
7 important due to sensitivity of these parameters to project specific condition, stake holder

8 priorities, regulations, as well as the economic and social status [6, 8, 9, 23].

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
(a) (b) (c)

U
AN
M
D
TE
EP
(d) (e)
C

Figure 2. Detailing of the façade alternatives a) Double brickwork with internal air cavity, b) Aluminium composite panel with external
AC

insulation, c) Ceramic cladding with external insulation d) Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) panels with external insulation, e) Concrete
blocks with insulation between both masonry leaves
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
Figure 3. The methodology followed in this study
AN
In this study, Delphi method with two iterations of questionnaire was used to gather the
M

criteria and sub-criteria relevant to the decision-making problem as well as their pair-wise

importance [29]. The process began by preparing a preliminary list of criteria and sub-criteria
D

complied from the available literature. A questionnaire was then prepared based on the
TE

gathered criteria and distributed among a group of professionals involved in the project

(Table 1) to obtain their outlook on i) criteria and sub-criteria to be included in selection of

EP

façade systems, ii) classification of criteria and sub-criteria, iii) pair-wise comparative
C

importance of different criteria rated using a 1 to 9 scale described in Table 2 [28]. By

AC

following Delphi method’s recommended process, a feedback report summarizing the

collected results and a second questionnaire, based on collected responses, were prepared and

distributed among the respondents. The modified final response of participants related to

sustainable criteria and sub-criteria were then used in the present study. The identified

criteria, divided into four main categories of environmental impacts, life cycle cost,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
performance and social benefits, are listed in Figure 4 and are discussed in detail in the

following section.

In the final step, the identified criteria and pair-wise comparison data were used by AHP

method to solve the decision-making problem. In this study, the AHP decision-making

process is conducted using SuperDecisions [30]. The generic AHP methodology has been

PT
described in detail in available literature [28].

RI
Table 1. Summary of the participants’ background and their position in the project
Participant
Position Area of expertise Year of experience

SC
NO
1 Senior architect1 NSW, VIC Registered Architect 14
2 Senior architect 2 NSW, WA Registered Architect 43
Extended residential architecture

U
3 Project architect 19
expertise
Landscape
AN
4 Landscape Architecture 8
architect
Construction
5 Project Manager/Director 26
manager
M

6 Building engineer Civil engineering 11

Kirribilli Living in Kirribilli
7 Elemang Avenue neighbours
neighbour for 3 years
D

Kirribilli Living in Kirribilli

8 Elemang Avenue neighbours
neighbour for 5 years
TE
EP

Table 2. Fundamental scale for developing priority matrix [28]

Intensity
of Definition Explanation
importance
C

1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective

Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity over
AC

3 Moderate importance
other
Experience and judgment strongly favour one activity over
5 Strong importance
other
Very strong or Experience and judgment very strongly favour one activity
7
demonstrated importance over other; its dominance demonstrated in practice
The evidence favouring one activity over another is of
9 Extreme importance
highest possible order of affirmation
1,2,4,6,8 Intermediate values
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
Figure 4. Sustainable criteria and sub-criteria identified for façade material selection
AN
2.3. Identified Selection Criteria for Sustainable Façade System

2.3.1. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts

M

The environmental life cycle impacts refer to environmental impacts incurred in all major
D

phases of building’s life cycle including i) material extraction, processing, and

TE

manufacturing, ii) operation, and iii) end-of-life phases. In this study, three sub-criteria were

identified by respondents to account for the life cycle environmental impacts of façades.
EP

These include embodied energy and carbon, cooling and heating load and resource

sustainability, described in the following sections.

C
AC

Embodied Energy and Embodied Carbon

The embodied energy/carbon of a building is determined mainly by the embodied

energy/carbon factor of materials and quantity of the material used. Different façade

materials have different embodied energy and carbon factors due differences in the energy

and carbon intensiveness, respectively, of their production and processing process.

Furthermore, the total quantity of the material used in the façade may vary considerably from
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
a façade to another. Table 3 compares the embodied energy and carbon of different

alternative façade systems, calculated by multiplying the quantity of different constituent

materials of the façades by their corresponding embodied energy and carbon factor. The

materials’ quantity was evaluated based on the detailing of the facades shown in Figure 2,

while the embodied energy and carbon factors were obtained from the Inventory of Carbon

PT
and Energy (ICE) [31]. As can be seen, the embodied carbon and energy of façade may vary

RI
considerably (by up to 76%) depending on its type. As shown, aluminium composite panels

appear as the alternative with the highest embodied carbon, while ACC panels are found to be

SC
the alternative with the lowest carbon footprint.

U
Heating and Cooling Load
AN
Thermal efficiency is an important building characteritic which significantly affects the

operating energy needs of the buildings. Thermal efficiency is affected considerably achieved
M

by design of the building envelope [10]. A number of commercial energy modelling software
D

including Ecotect [32], RETScreen [33], Polysun [34], PVsyst [35] are used in practice to
TE

evaluate the energy performance and associated carbon footprint of the building in the

conceptual design stage [36]. In this study, the cooling and heating loads required to provide
EP

thermal comfort in the building were estimated by varying the type of the façade system of

the building modelled in Revit [37] and performing a thermal analysis. The thermal comfort
C

range was set to 21 to 23⁰C. The 3D models of the building, as well as snapshots of the
AC

façade component modelling and results modules, for the case of ceramic cladding with

external insulation, are shown in Figure 5. Furthermore, the annual peak cooling and heating

load results for each alternative façade system are summarised in Table 4. As shown, the

façade alternatives considered in the present study seem to have minor differences in terms of

effects on peak cooling and heating loads.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 3. Total Embodied energy and embodied carbon of different façade systems considered
Embodied Total Total
Embodied
Façade Weight Carbon Embodied Embodied
Material Energy
Alternative (kg) (KgCO2- Energy Carbon
(MJ/kg)[31]
e/kg)[31] (MJ/kg) (KgCO2-e/kg)
A Double brickwork leaf 729324 3.00 0.24 2187972 175037.8
Silver anodized
14037.4 155 9.16 2175800.1 128582.6
aluminium
B Expanded polystyrene
992.8 88.6 3.29 87961.2 3266.3
insulation

PT
SUM 2263761.3 131848.9
Ceramic tile 86331 12 0.78 1035972 67338.2
Extruded Aluminium
6810.1 154 9.08 1048755.4 61835.7
substructure
C

RI
Expanded Polystyrene
992.8 88.6 3.29 87962.1 3266.3
exterior insulation
SUM 2172689.5 132440.2
Skim coating (single) 1726.6 10.5 0.36 18129.3 621.6

SC
Aerated concrete panel 79122.4 3.5 0.375 276928.4 29670.9
Expanded Polystyrene
D 992.8 88.6 3.29 87962.1 3266.3
exterior insulation
Sawn hardwood stud 14971.5 10.4 0.87 155703.8 13025.2

U
SUM 538723.6 39765.4
External render
1726.6 21 0.73 36258.6 1260.4
AN
(double coat)
External blockwork
789736.8 0.59 0.063 465944.7 49753.4
E leaf (8MPa)
Expanded Polystyrene
992.79 88.6 3.29 87962.1 3266.3
insulation
M

SUM 590165.4 54280.1

D
TE

Table 4. Peak cooling and heating total load over one year for different façade alternatives
Peak cooling total load Peak heating total load
Façade alternative
(W) (W)
A 70964 50025
EP

B 70017 48886
C 70707 49330
d 69978 48788
C

e 70996 50470
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
(a)

D
TE
C EP
AC

(b) (C)
Figure 5. (a) 3D model, (b) façade modelling module, (c) result module for the ceramic cladding with external insulation alternative
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Resource Sustainability

The three key indicators identified in this study to evaluate the sustainability of façade

systems in terms of use of natural resources include renewability, recyclability, and criticality

[38]. In the following, the applicability of these indicators to façade materials considered in

PT
our case study is discussed.

Renewability: Natural resources are usually divided into renewable and non-renewable

RI
resources [39]. Renewable resources refer to resources such as timber that can be renewed or

regularly harvested. A non-renewable resource, on the other hand, is a resource that can only

SC
be harvested once - also named stock - such as iron ore, or is formed extremely slowly such

U
as crude oil. Many of these resources are limited, and others such as metals and fossil oils are
AN
severely exploited [39]. In the global scale, the stock of a majority of common building

materials such as aggregate, clay, lime, etc. is large [39, 40]. This might not, however, stand
M

true in regional scale and thus, the criticality of a resource should be interpreted within the

context of regional resource availability [41]. The typical façade materials such as clay,
D

concrete, and aluminium, fall into the same renewability category of stock resources, as their
TE

renewal rate is low compared to their rate of consumption. Therefore, in the absence of a
EP

more accurate measure to measure the differences between the level of renewability of these

resources, inclusion of renewability as a selection criterion does not contribute to decision

C

making. Further research is required to develop a reliable methodology for comparative

AC

ranking of degree of renewability, depletion rate, of different construction materials based on

local consumption and resource availability data.

Recyclability: Recycling of building materials contributes considerably to sustainability in

construction by reducing the negative end-of-life impacts of building materials. Recycling

contributes to sustainability mainly by reducing the need for extraction of natural resources

through making available alternative recycled materials, reduces the energy use and carbon
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
emissions incurred in transportation of waste materials to remote landfills, and save the

landfill space [42]. With this in mind, recyclability of constituting materials is considered as

an important sustainability indicator in selection of the façade systems. A reliable measure of

recyclability should account for the benefits achievable, or the reduction in the end-of-life

environmental impacts, of the material through recycling rather than solely the availability of

PT
local recycling technology for the material. The extent of the economic and environmental

RI
benefits achievable, on the other hand, varies considerably with type and efficiency of the

recycling technology, yield of the recycling process, quality of the recycled material,

SC
availability of market for the recycled material, etc. [43], and thus is challenging to quantify.

In absence of such measures, a simplified measure of recyclability may be achieved using the

U
statistics on the amount of material recycled within a certain period of time. However, such
AN
statistics are sensitive to the location and may not be readily available for all common façade
M

materials.

Criticality: Resource depletion studies mostly focus on the geophysical availability of

D

mineral and metals by overlooking the constraints of political economy, geostrategic

TE

considerations or environmental legislation in producing countries [38]. The criticality of

material is assessed by economic and geopolitical factors such as economic importance,

EP

supply risk (e.g. strict environmental regulation in an exporting country impairing imports of
C

a resource type). A number of methods for assessment of criticality of material resources and
AC

lists of critical material resources identified using these methods have been reported by

various agencies including European Commission [44] and National Research Council [45].

Our investigation showed that none of the common façade materials considered in the present

study is listed among the 14 critical materials indicated by the European Commission [44].

Therefore, criticality of resources does not lead to differentiation between different façade

systems considered in this case study and thus is not included as one of the selection criteria.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Based on the above discussion, recyclability was selected as a differentiating indicator,

representing the resource sustainability criterion, for comparison of façade systems

considered in this study. The recyclability of each of the façade systems considered is

discussed in the following.

a) Brick and concrete blocks and ceramic tiles: Bricks are viewed as ‘mixed masonry’ or

PT
‘builders’ rubble’ often mixed with concrete and are relatively easy to process with simple

RI
and well-established crushing techniques [46]. There is also a significant market for recycled

products in some metropolitan locations, where recycling sites can produce products that are

SC
commercially competitive with quarry products. Virgin crushed rocks are being replaced in

low-grade roads and pavement sub-bases with recycled concrete and brick [46].

U
Consequently, due to the ease of recycling of brick and concrete blocks using available well-
AN
established technologies, along with the possibility of cleaning and re-using in other projects,
M

in this case study the recycling potential for both brickwork and concrete blockwork

alternatives was considered to be “high”. Similarly, ceramic tiles can be considered as mixed
D

masonry which can be recycled for use in low-grade road and pavement sub-base
TE

applications after being crushed together with brick and concrete debris.

b) Composite panel (aluminium and plastic): The 15 European Union member states
EP

combined are one of the largest aluminium fabricators (e.g., rolling, extrusion, and casting)
C

and manufacturers (assembly and production of finished products) worldwide [47]. Because
AC

of limited ore mining and energy constraints, the EU is structurally dependent on aluminium

recycling for its domestic metal supply. In 2003, 2.6 million tonnes of primary aluminium

were produced and a reported 3.9 million tonnes of aluminium were extracted from

purchased and tolled scrap [47]. The availability of a well-established market for aluminium

debris and the fact that the properties of the recycled aluminium do not deteriorate are

considered the main reasons behind the popularity of aluminium recycling. Due to the very
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
high recycling potential of aluminium debris in practice, in this case study, the recyclability

of composite panels considered in this case study was considered as ‘very high,' placing it in

a better position compared to brick and concrete blocks.

d) Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) panels: According to Australia’s guide to

PT
environmentally sustainable homes, the AAC debris can be crushed and recycled as

aggregates [25]. Similar to brick and concrete blocks, AAC neither contains nor emits toxic

RI
substances, leading to its “high” recyclability.

SC
2.3.2. Life Cycle Costs

Sustainability requires a balance between economic, environmental and social impacts of the

U
design and planning decisions. On the other hand, economic viability is one of the most
AN
important requirements of a successful project in practice. In the present case study, life cycle

cost analysis was performed by estimating the five major life cycle cost elements, i.e.
M

material, transportation, labour, maintenance and design costs, for each alternative façade
D

system based on the construction cost data from the Australian “Cordell Housing Building
TE

Cost Guide” [48] and quotes from local suppliers.

To calculate the transportation costs, the distance between the building and the nearest
EP

manufacturing site for each type of façade was estimated using Google Maps. Furthermore,
C

the distance between the building and the nearest recycling site was estimated to account for
AC

the costs of transportation incurred at the end of life of façade (Table 7). The transportation

cost per cubic meter was then estimated by multiplying the weight of the material (Table 3)

by the unit cost of selected mode of transportation as reported in RSMeans [49]. The

“material and labour”, maintenance, and transportation costs for different façade systems are

compared in Tables 5, 6 and 7, respectively. As can be seen, the type of the façade system

may considerably affect the associated material, labour, maintenance and transportation costs.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
This is particularly apparent in this case study for the material costs and labour costs which

vary up to 260% and 220%, respectively, among the alternative façade systems considered.

Similarly, as shown in Table 7, considerable differences is observed among transportation

costs of various alternatives. As shown the long transport distance for ceramic cladding,

which is imported from China, results in a considerably higher transport cost compared to

PT
locally supplied façade materials including aluminium composite panels.

RI
Table 5. Material and installation costs of façade alternatives considered
Material cost Labour cost
Alternatives Activities/Material (Australian (Australian

SC
Dollar/m2) Dollar/m2)
110 mm Brickwork external leaf, common clay
58.74 47.04
brick
Brickwork Pointing - 8.14

U
a Fill with cement mortar 10.86 16.28
Galvanized steel wall ties 1.40 12.55
AN
Painting (internal) on fibre cement surface 1.11 4.69
Interior surface preparation for painting (wash) 0.4 2.48
Sum 72.51 91.18
Composite Panel Alucobond Plus 4mm 83.25
M

Substructure: extruded anodized aluminium type

45.94 28.05
Omega 2.8mm average thick
b
Insulation: 25mm thick Polystyrene to brickwork 9.26 6.74
D

Painting (internal) on fibre-cement surface 1.11 4.69

Interior surface preparation for painting (wash) 0.4 2.48
TE

Sum 139.96 41.96

Extruded ceramic tile 400x800x39mm horizontal
116.61
joint
Substructure: extruded anodized aluminium type
45.94 28.05
EP

c Omega 2.8mm average thick

Insulation: 25mm thick Polystyrene to studs 9.26 6.74
Painting (internal) on fibre-cement surface 1.11 4.69
Interior surface preparation for painting (wash) 0.4 2.48
C

Sum 173.32 41.96

AAC Wall panel, 75mm thick fixed to stud
AC

d 56.97 51.05
including sills and 20mm top hat batters
External sealer + oil-based paint on concrete
4.55 17.50
walls
Insulation: 25mm thick Polystyrene to studs 9.26 6.74
Painting (internal) on fibre-cement surface 1.11 4.69
Interior surface preparation for painting (wash) 0.4 2.48
Sum 72.29 82.46
Hollow Concrete Blockwork 190mm laid in
50.10 53.75
mortar
External sealer + double coating on concrete
e 4.07 15.44
walls
Insulation: 25mm thick Polystyrene to studs 9.26 6.74
Painting (internal) on fibre-cement surface 1.11 4.69
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Interior surface preparation for painting (wash) 0.4 2.48
Maintenance: External coating reparation and
painting
Sum 64.94 83.1

Table 6. Maintenance costs

Maintenance costs
Alternatives description
(Australian Dollar /m2)

PT
a External maintenance, cleaning 6.75
Maintenance from mechanical damage and surface
b cleaning each 10 years
28.87

RI
Maintenance from mechanical damage and surface
c 33.4
cleaning each 10 years
Maintenance: From mechanical damage and surface

SC
d 42.7
cleaning + painting each 10 years
Maintenance: External coating reparation + painting
e 9.3
each 10 years

U
Table 7. Transportation costs summary
AN
Transportation in
Transportation in end-of-life
construction stage Total
stage (construction to
(manufacturing to transportation
recycling site)
Alternatives construction site) cost
M

Cost (Australian
Distance Cost (Australian Distance
(Australian Dollar)
(km) Dollar) (km)
Dollar)
D

a 37 9224.8 37 9224.8 18449.6

b 17 2286.2 16 2151.7 4437.9
TE

c 904 150172.5 28 4651.4 154823.9

d 69 11346.4 28 4604.3 15950.7
e 38 9211.2 28 6787.2 15998.4
EP

Apart from material, labour, maintenance and transportation costs, another important cost
C

component affecting the life cycle costs of façade systems is the design cost. In this study,
AC

four factors including 1) the amount of detailing, 2) complexity of calculations, 3) auxiliary

materials and substructure needed, and 4) experience with similar type of façade were

chosen to gauge the complexity of the design and thus the design costs of various façade

systems. A survey was prepared and distributed among professionals experienced in the

design field to quantitatively rank these factors (Table 1, excluding neighbours). The experts

were asked to rank each of the above factors for the different alternative from 1 to 5 for very
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
low, low, medium, high and very high, respectively. The average scores are reported in Table

8.

Table 8. Result of the survey on the design cost estimation

Alternatives Detailing Complexity of calculation Axillar means Example availability
a 2.00 2.00 1.00 5.00
b 4.00 3.67 5.00 3.67
c 4.00 3.67 5.00 2.67

PT
d 3.00 3.00 5.00 2.00
e 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.00

RI
2.3.3. Performance

SC
Due to their technical features, building materials have different performances under the

conditions imposed by the building and its surrounding environment. In this study, based on

U
the results of the survey conducted and available literature, seven performance indicators
AN
namely fire resistance, resistance to decay, weight, thermal insulation, thermal mass, acoustic
M

insulation, and life expectancy were selected and were evaluated for their applicability to the

case project. According to section C of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) [50], the case
D

building of this study is classified as an unattached or isolated building, thereby the fire
TE

resistance requirement does not apply.

EP

Weight was included as a performance measure due to nature of the case project being a

façade replacement project, where evaluating the structure’s capability to withstand the
C

weight of the new façade and the need for any potential structural retrofitting before façade
AC

installation is highly important. Table 9 compares the weight of different façade alternatives

with that of the existing façade. As shown, all alternative façade systems weigh less than the

existing façade (double brickwork), 361 kg/m2, ruling out the need for any structural

retrofitting.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 9. Weights of different façade systems considered
Density Unit
Thickness
Alternatives Material (kg/m3) weight
(m)
[51] (kg/m2)
Interior brickwork leaf 2 x 175 - 350
a
Gypsum wall board 1100 0.01 11
Sum 361
Silver anodized aluminium 2710 0.003 8.13
Expanded polystyrene exterior

PT
23 0.025
b insulation 0.57499
Interior brickwork leaf 175 - 175
Gypsum wall board 1100 0.01 11

RI
Sum 194.705
Ceramic tile 2000 0.025 50
Extruded aluminium substructure
2739 0.08

SC
(0.018 m2/1 m2) 3.944157
c Expanded polystyrene exterior
23 0.025
insulation 0.57499
Interior brickwork leaf 175 - 175

U
Gypsum wall board 1100 0.01 11
Sum 240.5191
AN
Skim coating 1900 0.003 5.699998
Aerated concrete panel 611 0.075 45.825
Expanded polystyrene exterior
d 23 0.025
M

insulation 0.57499
Interior brickwork leaf 175 - 175
Gypsum wall board 1100 0.01 11
D

Sum 238.1
External render 1900 0.003 5.699998
TE

External blockwork leaf 158.7 - 158.7

Expanded polystyrene exterior
e 23 0.025
insulation 0.57499
Interior brickwork leaf 175 - 175
EP

Gypsum wall board 1100 0.01 11

Sum 350.975
C
AC

Table 10. Thermal resistance and thermal mass of different alternatives

Thermal resistance Thermal mass
Alternatives
(m2k/w) (kj/m2k)
A 0.5987 4.4
B 2.4357 10.17
C 2.4565 13
D 2.7519 14.88
E 4.1897 30.2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Thermal properties of façade materials can significantly affect the amount of energy used

during the operation phase of a building to keep its internal temperature within a comfort

range. In this study, the thermal resistance and thermal mass were selected to compare the

thermal performance of different façade systems (Table 10). Thermal resistance, R-value, is a

measure of material’s resistance to heat flow through suppressing conduction, convection,

PT
and radiation. It is a function of material thermal conductivity, thickness, and density [52].

RI
On the other hand, thermal mass is a measure of capability of materials to store heat. When

used in a well-insulated building, thermal mass can considerably reduce the need for forced

SC
heating and cooling by minimizing the fluctuations in the building’s internal temperature

[53].

U
AN
The acoustic performance of façade systems can considerably affect the noise pollution levels

inside a building. Noise pollution decreases the indoor environmental comfort and adversely
M

effects the residents health [54]. In this study, the acoustic properties of a single material

layer of different alternatives specified by the Sound Reduction Index (Rw), measured in dB,
D

is used to compare the noise reduction performance of various façade systems (Table 11).
TE

Table 11. Sound reduction indices

Thickness Rw
Alternatives
EP

(mm) (db)
a 110 44
b 4 26
c 25 30
C

d 75 50
AC

e 190 55

The resistance to decay cosniderably affects the serviciability of the façade systems during

their planned service life. In this case study, resistance to weathering and resistance to

deformation were identified as the main indicators for characterising the resistance of façade

systems to decay. According to the Building Code of Australia (BCA) [50], the location of

the building in the case examined corresponds to the climate zone 5, with a warm and humid
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
temperate climate, where materials are prone to decay. Weathering is generally driven by

ingress of deteriorating agents into the material [55]. Therefore, in this case study vapour

permeability of façade materials was selected as a comparative measure of the resistance of

façade systems to weathering. On the other hand, modulus of elasticity was selected as a

measure of resistance of façade materials to deformantion. Modulus of elasticity characterises

PT
the ability of a solid material to return to its original shape and size after removal of the

RI
applied load leading to deformation [56]. The permeability and modulus elasticity of different

façade materials considered in this study are compared in Table 12.

SC
Table 12. Young’s modules and permeability
Young’s modules Permeability
Alternatives
(Mpa) (gr/m2/hr/m) [57]

U
a 20 339.03
b 68.9 0
AN
c 38.779 50.85
d 16.603 190.7
e 23.25 1017.09
M

2.3.4. Social Benefit

D

A building is not an isolated element, and it is usually built within an existing society.
TE

Therefore, a building may highly impact not only its residents but also its surrounding
EP

community. In this study, aesthetics, suitability to location, suitability to climate, health and

safety and local supply were identified as main social impact indicators. Due to compliance
C

of all façade materials considered in this study with Australia’s stringent health and safety
AC

regulation, health and safety was found to make no contribution to differentiating different

alternatives and was excluded from the analysis. On the other hand, due to direct impact of

local supply on reducing the transport costs which have been already considered, local supply

was excluded to avoid repetition. The remaining selected measures are discussed in the

following:
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Aesthetics

The view towards beauty of a particular façade system may vary considerably from a person

to another, rendering aesthetic a highly subjective indicator. In this case, study, a

questionnaire was prepared and distributed among different professionals involved in the

project as well as the neighbours (Table 1). Three aesthetic related parameters including

PT
originality, modulation, and premium finish were defined and included in the questionnaire.

RI
Originality was defined as a positive change in the current trend, style, shape, ornament,

identity, etc. Modulation was defined as a positive repetition of a single or composed unit

SC
within the façade which breaks the monotony and attracts passerbys. An example of

U
modulated façade is a curtain wall with upstands and transoms delimiting series of panel with
AN
similar or different proportions. The “premium material finish” was defined to gauge the

quality and character of the material. A measurable scale of 1 to 5 was used to rate different
M

façade systems based on these measures. The results of the survey indicating the grade of

compliance of different façade alternatives with the aesthetic requirement as perceived by

D

survey participants are presented in Table 13.

TE

Table 13. Survey results for ranking the aesthetic and suitability to location and suitability to
climate of different façade alternatives
EP

Premium Suitability to Suitability to

Alternatives Originality Modulation
material finish location climate
a 1.2 2.6 1.8 4.8 2.8
b 3.2 4.8 2.6 3.4 3.8
C

c 4.4 4.6 5.0 2.6 4.6

AC

d 4.4 1.6 1.6 2.8 2.6

e 1.6 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.2

Suitability to Location

A building should comply with its surrounding and should not disturb the identity, style,

shape and ambiance of its neighbourhood. For instance, in a typical Sydney street with

typical two storey buildings and Victorian architecture, a new high-rise building with a
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
curtain wall façade could be considered as disturbing the style, identity, common material

and height of the respective surroundings. With this in mind, suitability to location was

identified in this study as an important social impact criterion. Similar to aesthetic, suitability

to location may be considered as a subjective criterion and thus, was evaluated using the

survey described above (Table 13).

PT
Suitability to Climate

RI
Suitability to climate is included in the social criteria to account for the effect of the climate

on the appearance of the façade material. The undesirable changes to appearance may include

SC
undesirable stains, efflorescence, and cracks due to long-term exposure to certain climate

U
conditions. The average scores for suitability to climate of each façade system as evaluated
AN
using the results of survey are shown in Table 13. The relatively low rating of concrete block

façade may be due to high porosity of concrete, thus high risk of salt attack, and the use of
M

paint finish for this façade system, which lead to high likelihood of appearance and high

visibility of stains, respectively. While the same problem applies to AAC; the reported
D

specifications highlighted a considerably reduced exposure of ACC façade system to the risk
TE

of salt attack achieved through improvements in the manufacturing process. On the other

hand, high porosity of bricks, the presence of stains on brick facades is usually less noticeable
EP

mainly because brick façades are not finished by paint. While composite panels finished with
C

aluminium show a relatively good resistance to salt attack, they are known to be prone to
AC

corrosion. The results of the survey indicated that ceramic tiles, which are manufactured at

very high temperatures and have low porosity, are expected to incur the least appearance

deterioration among various façade options.

2.4. Ranking of Alternaitves based on Sustainability Criteria

After defining the hierarchy of the problem and collecting all the required data,

SuperDecisions [30] was used to solve the decision-making problem (Figure 6). The pair-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
wise comparison matrices and the local and global weights for criteria and sub-criteria

calculated based on a pairwise comparison using the Delphi method are shown in Table 14

and 15, respectively. The local weight reflects the priority level of each sub-criteria within its

cluster criteria, while the global weight shows the weight of contribution of each of the sub-

criteria to the final decision. The local weight of sub-criteria were calculated using the

PT
priority matrix with the Geometric Means of the Rows method [58] (Table 15), while the

RI
global weights were calculated by multiplying the local weights by their respective cluster

criteria weight. As shown in Table 15, calculated weights based on collected responses

SC
indicate a same level of importance for environmental impacts and costs of façade systems,

highlighted jointly as most important criteria for selection of sustainable façade systems.

U
Performance, on the other hand, was identified as the second important decision criteria,
AN
while social benefits were voted the least important set of criteria with a relative importance
M

weight of 0.067. Based on the raking given by the respondents, embodied energy and

embodied carbon sub-criterion and material cost sub-criterion were highlighted as top two
D

most important sub-criteria, while suitability to climate was highlighted as the least important
TE

sub-criterion.
C EP
AC

Figure 6. The hierarchy of the case study developed in SuperDecisions

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 14. Pair-wise comparison matrix and weights for sustainable criteria
Criteria Environmental impact Cost Performance Social benefit Weight
Environmental impact 1 1 3 5 0.39
Cost 1 1 3 5 0.39
Performance 1/3 1/3 1 3 0.15
Social benefit 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 0.067

Table 15. Local and global weights of sub-criteria

Local Global

PT
Criteria Weight Sub-criteria
weight weight
C11- Embodied energy and carbon
0.63 0.245
emission
C1- Environmental

RI
0.39 C12- Cooling load 0.15 0.058
impact
C13- Heating load 0.15 0.058
C14- Material depletion 0.06 0.023

SC
C21- Material cost 0.44 0.171
C22- Labour cost 0.2 0.078
C2- Cost 0.39 C23- Transport cost 0.08 0.031
C24- Maintenance cost 0.07 0.027

U
C25- Design cost 0.2 0.078
C31- Weight 0.06 0.009
AN
C32- Thermal resistance 0.34 0.051
C3- Performance 0.15 C33- Thermal mass 0.32 0.048
C34- Acoustic insulation 0.13 0.019
C35- Resistance to decay 0.13 0.019
M

C41- Aesthetics 0.73 0.049

C4- Social benefit 0.068 C42- Suitability to location 0.19 0.013
C43- Suitability to climate 0.08 0.005
D
TE

The results obtained from SuperDecision are shown in Figure 7. As shown, Concrete blocks

and Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels were identified, with a negligible difference, as the
EP

most sustainable options for the new façade based on the sustainability criteria and weights

considered in this study. The ceramic cladding, on the other hand, was identified as the least
C

sustainable option. As can be seen, the methodology presented through this case study can
AC

provide decision makers with clear decision support data on relative sustainability of different

façade systems in a particular project. It should be, however, noted that the achieved ranking

is reflective of view of stakeholders in the particular project considered in this study and the

results should not be considered as a general ranking of sustainability of different façade

alternatives considered in this study. The relative performance of different façade systems in

different sustainability performance areas discussed can vary considerably depending on the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
project specific conditions and requirements. Furthermore, the relative importance of

different criteria may vary considerably depending on organisational and national priorities at

the time of the study. With this in mind, sensitivity analysis on importance weights and

inclusion/exclusion of different criteria may be performed to provide decision support data.

This is particularly important when dealing with two closely ranked alternatives, as in the

PT
present study.

RI
E Concrete blocks 0.24

SC
D AAC panels 0.238

U
C Ceramic cladding 0.16
AN
B Composite panels 0.201
M

A Double brickwork 0.16

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

D
TE

Figure 7. Resulted priorities of the alternatives from the decision-making problem solved by
SuperDecisions
EP

3. Conclusion
C

The results of an actual case study on selection of a sustainable façade system to replace the
AC

existing damaged façade of a residential building was presented to i) highlight the important

sustainability criteria for selection of façade systems, and ii) present a systematic decision-

making methodology for selection of the sustainable façade system based on such criteria.

Sustainability of five common façade systems used in Australia including, Double Brick,

Composite Panels, Ceramic cladding, AAC panels, and Concrete blocks was evaluated based

on the criteria and importance weights identified through questionnaires. Delphi method was
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
used in two iterations to gather the selection criteria and sub-criteria as well as their

importance weights. The results highlighted 17 important sub-criteria for selection of

sustainable façade systems which were classified into four main categories namely,

environmental impacts, cost, performance and social benefits. The embodied carbon and

energy following by material costs were identified by survey participants as the most

PT
important criteria while suitability to climate was identified as the least important sub-

RI
criteria. The AHP method was used to solve the decision-making problem, which highlighted

the AAC panels as the most sustainable façade system among the alternatives considered.

SC
The methodology demonstrated through the presented case study may be used by decision-

makers to formalize and effectively solve the decision-making problem regarding the

U
selection of the most sustainable façade system for a particular building. It should be noted
AN
that the criteria and weights presented in this study are specific to the project presented and
M

their suitability for other projects should be evaluated prior to use. Further research is

required to develop more reliable quantitative and less subjective measures for a number of
D

sustainability criteria discussed including suitability to location and renewability.

TE

References
EP

1. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Building and Climte Change: Summary of
Desicion-Makers 2009. p. 62.
2. Statistics, A.B.o., Waste Account, Australia, Experimental Estimates. 2013: Australia.
3. Rhodes, C., Construction industry: statistics and policy. 2015, The House of Commons
C

Library: UK.
4. Research, A.G.E.a., Australia’s Construction Industry: Profile and Outlook. 2015: Australia.
AC

5. Sadineni, S.B., S. Madala, and R.F. Boehm, Passive building energy savings: A review of
building envelope components. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2011. 15(8): p.
3617-3631.
6. Martabid, J. and C. Mourgues, Criteria Used for Selecting Envelope Wall Systems in Chilean
Residential Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2015. 141(12): p.
05015011.
7. Manioğlu, G. and Z. Yılmaz, Economic evaluation of the building envelope and operation
period of heating system in terms of thermal comfort. Energy and Buildings, 2006. 38(3): p.
266-272.
8. Singhaputtangkul, N., et al., Criteria for Architects and Engineers to Achieve Sustainability
and Buildability in Building Envelope Designs. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2013.
30(2): p. 236-245.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9. Zavadskas, E.K., et al., Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes
values determined at intervals. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2008. 14(2): p.
85-93.
10. Han, B., et al., Life cycle assessment of ceramic façade material and its comparative analysis
with three other common façade materials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015. 99: p. 86-
93.
11. Kim, K.-H., A comparative life cycle assessment of a transparent composite façade system
and a glass curtain wall system. Energy and Buildings, 2011. 43(12): p. 3436-3445.
12. Taborianski, V.M. and R.T.A. Prado, Methodology of CO2 emission evaluation in the life cycle

PT
of office building façades. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2012. 33(1): p. 41-47.
13. Ottelé, M., et al., Comparative life cycle analysis for green façades and living wall systems.
Energy and Buildings, 2011. 43(12): p. 3419-3429.
14. Azari, R. and R. Palomera-Arias, Building Envelopes: A Comparison of Impacts on

RI
Environment, in AEI 2015. 2015, American Society of Civil Engineers. p. 230-236.
15. Azari, R., Integrated energy and environmental life cycle assessment of office building
envelopes. Energy and Buildings, 2014. 82: p. 156-162.

SC
16. Monteiro, H. and F. Freire, Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls:
Comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy and Buildings, 2012. 47: p. 572-
583.

U
17. Pulselli, R.M., E. Simoncini, and N. Marchettini, Energy and emergy based cost–benefit
evaluation of building envelopes relative to geographical location and climate. Building and
AN
Environment, 2009. 44(5): p. 920-928.
18. The ATHENA sustainable materials institute, ATHENA. 2017: Canada.
19. Kahhat, R., et al., Environmental Impacts over the Life Cycle of Residential Buildings Using
Different Exterior Wall Systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2009. 15(3): p. 211-221.
M

20. Gu, L., et al. Integrated assessment method for building life cycle environmental and
economic performance. in Building Simulation. 2008. Springer.
21. Hasan, A., Optimizing insulation thickness for buildings using life cycle cost. Applied energy,
D

1999. 63(2): p. 115-124.

22. Bolattürk, A., Optimum insulation thicknesses for building walls with respect to cooling and
TE

heating degree-hours in the warmest zone of Turkey. Building and Environment, 2008. 43(6):
p. 1055-1064.
23. Zavadskas, E.K., et al., Multi-criteria Assessment of Facades’ Alternatives: Peculiarities of
Ranking Methodology. Procedia Engineering, 2013. 57: p. 107-112.
EP

24. Hashemi, N., R. Fayaz, and M. Sarshar, Thermal behaviour of a ventilated double skin facade
in hot arid climate. Energy and Buildings, 2010. 42(10): p. 1823-1832.
25. Macgee, C., Materials, in YourHome, Australia's Guide to Environmentally Sustainable
C

Homes. 2013.
26. Downton, P., Autoclaved aerated concrete. 2013, YourHome: Australia.
AC

27. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 1980, New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Saaty, T.L., How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of
Operational Research, 1990. 48(1): p. 9-26.
29. Dalkey, N.C., The Delphi Method: an Experimental Study of Group Opinion. 1969, RAND
Corporation Santa Monica, CA.
30. SuperDecisions. 2005: Pittsburgh, USA.
31. Hammond, G. and C.I. Jones, Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE). 2006: UK: University of
Bath.
32. Autodesk Ecotect Analysis. 2011, Autodesk, Inc.
33. Natural Resource Canada, RETScreen. 2017: Canada.
34. Vela Solaris, Polysun Simulation Software. 2017: Switzerland.
35. PVSYST PHOTOVOLTAIC SOFTWARE, PVSYST. 2017.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
36. Kanters, J., M. Horvat, and M.-C. Dubois, Tools and methods used by architects for solar
design. Energy and Buildings, 2014. 68, Part C(0): p. 721-731.
37. Autodesk Revit 2016. 2016, Autodesk, Inc.
38. Klinglmair, M., S. Sala, and M. Brandão, Assessing resource depletion in LCA: a review of
methods and methodological issues. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
2013. 19(3): p. 580-592.
39. Copyright, in The Ecology of Building Materials (Second edition), B.B. Butters and F. Henley,
Editors. 2009, Architectural Press: Oxford. p. iv.
40. Ruuska, A. and T. Häkkinen, Material Efficiency of Building Construction. Buildings, 2014.

PT
4(3): p. 266.
41. Habert, G., et al., Development of a depletion indicator for natural resources used in
concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2010. 54(6): p. 364-376.
42. Akbarnezhad, A., et al., Effects of the Parent Concrete Properties and Crushing Procedure on

RI
the Properties of Coarse Recycled Concrete Aggregates. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 2013. 25(12): p. 1795-1802.
43. Akbarnezhad, A. and Z.S. Moussavi Nadoushani, A computational method for selection of

SC
optimal concrete recycling strategy. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2014. 67(11): p. 543-
558.
44. European Commision, E., Critical raw materials for the EU: report of the Ad-hoc Working

U
Group on defining critical raw materials. 2010, European Commission DG Enterprise:
Brussels.
AN
45. Council), N.N.R., Minerals, critical minerals, and the US economy. 2007, National Academies:
Washington, DC.
46. department, E.E.P.L.f.t., Construction and Demolition Waste Guide Recycling and Re-use
across the Supply Chain. 2011, Commonwealth of Australia: Australia.
M

47. Boin, U.M.J. and M. Bertram, Melting standardized aluminum scrap: A mass balance model
for europe. JOM. 57(8): p. 26-33.
48. Cordell Housing, Building Cost Guide. 2014, NSW Australia: Cordell building publications.
D

49. RSMeans., Building Construction Cost Data. 73 rd annual edition ed. 2015, Massachusetts,
USA.: RSMeans.
TE

50. (ABCB), A.B.C.B., Building Code of Australia, in C. 2015: Australia.

51. Janicki, D., Typical Weights of Building Material. 2013, Your Spreadsheets Website.
52. Al-Homoud, D.M.S., Performance characteristics and practical applications of common
building thermal insulation materials. Building and Environment, 2005. 40(3): p. 353-366.
EP

53. Dodoo, A., L. Gustavsson, and R. Sathre, Effect of thermal mass on life cycle primary energy
balances of a concrete- and a wood-frame building. Applied Energy, 2012. 92(0): p. 462-472.
54. Osada, Y., An overview of health effects on noise. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1988.
C

127(3): p. 407-410.
55. Rodriguez-Navarro, C., E. Doehne, and E. Sebastian, How does sodium sulfate crystallize?
AC

Implications for the decay and testing of building materials. Cement and Concrete Research,
2000. 30(10): p. 1527-1534.
56. Timoshenko, S., History of strength of materials: with a brief account of the history of theory
of elasticity and theory of structures. 1953: Courier Corporation.
57. Permeability of Common Building Material to Water Vapor. 2011: Alaska.
58. Reza, B., R. Sadiq, and K. Hewage, Sustainability assessment of flooring systems in the city of
Tehran: An AHP-based life cycle analysis. Construction and Building Materials, 2011. 25(4): p.
2053-2066.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The sustainability criteria for façade systems are identified and discussed.

The criteria are applied to selection of façade system in an actual case study.

AHP method is used to identify importance weights and rank façade alternatives.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC